(5.1.3.5 & 5.3.3.2) Low-Hanging Fruit: How can we identify and take advantage of co-benefits, both locally and globally?

This question is most closely associated with the following core question subtopics from this week's required reading:

5.1.3.5 (Connecting the ecological, economic and social)

5.3.3.2 (Decision support)

One point made in the Cambridge group on Monday was that we can't think seriously about sustainability issues if we're not willing to allow for trade-offs and substitutability between different dimensions of human well-being. I agree. However, I also think we can't seriously engage in tangible problem-solving if we ignore the flip-side of that coin. There are many instances in which, instead of trade-offs, there are complementarities between dimensions of well-being, sometimes called "co-benefits".

One example is the use of energy efficient cars and appliances, which both save people money and reduce emissions. Another example: Effective common pool resource management improves long-run economic outcomes for individuals, improves the environment and perhaps offers a social benefit through increased interaction with other members. Co-benefits may be particularly useful in the developing world, as it is not yet too late to incorporate them into design as new infrastructure is built.

Such complementarities between the ecological, economic and social aspects of well-being are the low-hanging fruit of our discipline and point to the most politically feasible strategies to achieve sustainability. Of course, we will not achieve sustainable development solely through these pareto improving moves, but it would be inefficient not to include them in our strategy. Therefore, identifying those co-benefits that have not yet been exploited should be a key goal of sustainability science research.

--To the extent that it is generalizable, what are the conditions under which we might expect to find such co-benefits?

--Can we outline a general strategy (adaptable to local conditions) for identifying them?

One might expect that if co-benefits existed, rational decision-makers would already be making use of them. However, there are various reasons why and instances in which this does not happen, due to information asymmetries, behavioral biases, coordination problems (especially with relation to public goods) and budget constraints that inhibit large up-front investments for better long-term outcomes. Thus a related line of questioning is:

--How can we identify and categorize these differing sources of unexploited co-benefits?

--What toolkit would we draw from to address these problems to take advantage of co-benefits?

--What (locally adaptable) decision rules can be developed to help match policy tools to problems that fall within this category?

A more specific topic related to this line of questioning is the operationalization of the Ostrom chapter on Institutions:

--Now that we know under what conditions communities do manage CPRs successfully, how do we change the situations in which communities are unsuccessful?

--Which of the input factors is endogenous? Which can be influenced by policies and interventions?

--What are the strategies that have been successful at changing those factors in the past?

--Under what conditions would we expect them to be successful in the future?